The rules read:
Spell resistance can protect a creature from a spell that’s already been cast. Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.
So what happens if a something already affected by an ongoing effect that allows a spell resistance check then gains spell resistance (as an example, after being targeted by and failing the save against Bestow Curse, the victim casts the spell Spell Resistance)?
Has the "check spell resistance only once" rule already been applied, when they were first subject to the effect but didn't have spell resistance (automatic failure), or would the moment they gain spell resistance be the first time that the spell resistance would be checked (as if they had voluntarily lowered spell resistance and then brought it back up)?
I'd assume that if you didn't have spell resistance to begin with then gaining it later wouldn't invoke the "voluntarily lowered clause", and thus wouldn't provoke a spell resistance check, but I'd like to make sure I'm not missing anything.
You only check for spell resistance when the spell is being cast on the target. If the spell is in effect and the target later gets spell resistance, nothing changes about the spells currently effecting the target.
^---- Yep. Check SR once and only when the spell is initially cast, and if he gains SR after a spell has already been cast on him, then it doesn't provide a new SR check. It would affect any spell cast on him after he gains SR like normal though.
Good to hear my assumptions were correct. I recently reread that rules section, and I'd forgotten about the "voluntarily lowered" clause; seeing that made me question the way I'd been adjudicating things.
Keep in mind external ongoing effects are different. If you're in a wall of fire and then suddenly gain SR, the thing that cast the spell then needs to make a SR check (if one doesn't already exist) to continue affecting you with the WoF.
Keep in mind external ongoing effects are different. If you're in a wall of fire and then suddenly gain SR, the thing that cast the spell then needs to make a SR check (if one doesn't already exist) to continue affecting you with the WoF.
How do you figure?
Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell.
If the thread's consensus is correct, then, if you've already been affected by a casting of Wall of Fire and didn't have spell resistance previously, gaining spell resistance won't force a spell resistance check.
Spell Resistance
Spell resistance (abbreviated SR) is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells. Some spells also grant spell resistance.
To affect a creature that has spell resistance, a spellcaster must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature’s spell resistance. The defender’s spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. If the caster fails the check, the spell doesn’t affect the creature. The possessor does not have to do anything special to use spell resistance. The creature need not even be aware of the threat for its spell resistance to operate.
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.
A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).
A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.
A creature with spell resistance cannot impart this power to others by touching them or standing in their midst. Only the rarest of creatures and a few magic items have the ability to bestow spell resistance upon another.
Spell resistance does not stack, but rather overlaps.
When Spell Resistance AppliesEach spell includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does.
Targeted Spells
Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.
Area Spells
Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell’s area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.
Effect Spells
Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web.
Spell resistance can protect a creature from a spell that’s already been cast. Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.
Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body. If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Spell-resistant creatures can be harmed by a spell when they are not being directly affected.
Spell resistance does not apply if an effect fools the creature’s senses or reveals something about the creature.
Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren’t subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast.
Successful Spell ResistanceSpell resistance prevents a spell or a spell-like ability from affecting or harming the resistant creature, but it never removes a magical effect from another creature or negates a spell’s effect on another creature. Spell resistance prevents a spell from disrupting another spell.
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally.
===========================================
Vs. Ongoing effects, such as Wall of Fire, if the SR check succeeds, then it affects you the entire time it's active. If the SR check fails, then it never affects you. The SR is only checked once, at the initial casting of the spell, or the first time you take damage from it (if you didn't get damaged at the initial casting).
So if you get hit by the spell while you don't have SR, and then leave, and gain SR, and go back into the spell's area, you would not receive a new SR check, you would be treated as if already having a successful SR check against you and the spell would affect you normally for its entire duration.
If you get hit by Wall of Fire and the initial SR check succeeds because you simply didn't have any SR, then you're treated as having failed the first SR check even if you gain SR later and try to walk through the same Wall of Fire effect. Even though you now have SR, you're still treated as if the initial SR check was successful and the spell will affect you normally for its entire duration.
I can never actually remember how it works with spells like Wall of Fire. If you pass through a wall of fire and take damage then get spell resistance cast on you, when you travel through the wall a second time, I would assume that the spell would have to check against spell resistance because its a unique instance with no memory of previous encounters. It'd be like getting Energy Resistance cast on you.
If you have SR and pass through a wall of fire which fails to overcome the SR, I can't recall if that makes you immune to that wall of fire for the rest of your SR's duration or if you have to check every time. Player facing SR is a niche interaction at my tables, fortunately.
This conversation has now exceeded my ability to declare what is objective truth.
Oh, Ninja'd.
EDIT: Took too long to post, apparently, so didn't see your last post above before posting this. Sorry about that.
I think you've just done an about face:
If you don't have spell resistance and are affected by a Wall of Fire, and then subsequently gain spell resistance and would be otherwise affected by the same instance of Wall of Fire, you wouldn't then check spell resistance again. That happened the first time you were affected (auto-failure, since you didn't have spell resistance), and you only ever check once per instance of a spell - with the exception of creatures who are actively suppressing their spell resistance and then subsequently bring it back up again.
Likewise, if you have spell resistance when first affected by the Wall of Fire, and the caster of the Wall of Fire fails to beat your spell resistance, then you will be immune to every exposure to that instance of Wall of Fire in perpetuity.
At least, if the current consensus is correct.
If you get hit by Wall of Fire and the initial SR check succeeds because you simply didn't have any SR, then you're treated as having failed the first SR check even if you gain SR later and try to walk through the Wall of Fire effect. Even though you now have SR, you're still treated as if having failed the initial SR check and the spell will affect you normally.
The rules, as far as I can tell, actually don't specify whether not having spell resistance is treated as an automatic failure on the spell resistance check, or if you simply affect the creature without spell resistance factoring into things.
The difference between the two is that the rules for spell resistance ask you to "check spell resistance", and if that language only applies to creatures that actually have spell resistace, then things might get more complicated.
On the whole, I think it makes more sense to go with your interpretation - but I'm not sure that's strictly RAW.
Musing on this more, and came across a second distinction between the interpretations for creatures without spell resistance: there are different outcomes for the different interpretations for creatures who lose spell resistance after having successfully resisted an ongoing effect.
For example, in round 1 creature 1 casts Wall of Fire on top of creature 2, who has active spell resistance from the spell Spell Resistance, and fails the spell resistance check to affect creature 2. On creature 2's turn, after creature 1, the spell Spell Resistance's duration expires; creature 2 doesn't move. On creature 1's turn in round 2 what happens? If the "check spell resistance" rules apply to creatures without spell resistance then creature 2 should continue to ignore the spell entirely. Otherwise, if those rules don't apply to creatures without spell resistance, creature 2 should take damage from the Wall of Fire.
I don't see any reason or rules supporting a spell resistance check against someone with no spell resistance. That situation seems more similar to the rule allowing a creature who has lowered his spell resistance getting a check when his resistance is back up.
I don't see any reason or rules supporting a spell resistance check against someone with no spell resistance. That situation seems more similar to the rule allowing a creature who has lowered his spell resistance getting a check when his resistance is back up.
So, to clarify, in the example in the OP you'd support the caster of Bestow Curse having to make a spell resistance check when the victim casts the spell Spell Resistance, and, in the example in my post above yours, you'd support creature 2 taking damage from the Wall of Fire on creature 1's turn on round 2?
The rules are that you check SR once, and only on initial casting of the spell, or as soon as the first time you get hit by it later. Otherwise, we’d have to make SR checks every time you increased your SR vs the same spell.
No. The difference there is bestow curse has already been applied and is "inside" the SR as a permanent effect. A wall of fire is something outside any SR and is affecting somebody only when they are within certain conditions to be affected by wall of fire, therefore "outside" your SR and the damage gets applied every round. Things that are "outside" your SR *should* care about SR while things that are "inside" (think spells you cast on yourself) don't. Assuming a spell resistance roll gets triggered when youre already being affected by something that is a constant application (for example any non-instantaneous, SR=Yes, damaging evocation spell), on the next application after gaining new SR, that is why you would roll for the wall of fire but not the bestow curse.
Honestly, they way I understand it to keep it simple (although technically you are supposed to roll SR checks per creature with SR) is that the caster always rolls a SR check when they cast a spell that cares about SR and that roll is stored until it needs to be checked against a creatures SR. Any creature that has SR higher than the roll is just not affected while their SR is active, which for most creatures is always, but in the case of reducing SR or the SR spell, as soon as a creature gains an SR higher than a spell that is active, they can no longer gain any new application of that spell's effects (i.e. damage/healing, new debuffs, etc.).
The rules are that you check SR once, and only on initial casting of the spell, or as soon as the first time you get hit by it later. Otherwise, we’d have to make SR checks every time you increased your SR vs the same spell.
I don't think there's any disagreement over how the rules work for creatures that do have spell resistance - the (potential) disagreement is over how the rules work for creatures that don't have spell resistance.
EDIT: Clearly, I spoke too soon.
No. The difference there is bestow curse has already been applied and is "inside" the SR as a permanent effect. A wall of fire is something outside any SR and is affecting somebody only when they are within certain conditions to be affected by wall of fire, therefore "outside" your SR and the damage gets applied every round. Things that are "outside" your SR *should* care about SR while things that are "inside" (think spells you cast on yourself) don't. Assuming a spell resistance roll gets triggered when youre already being affected by something that is a constant application (for example any non-instantaneous, SR=Yes, damaging evocation spell), on the next application after gaining new SR, that is why you would roll for the wall of fire but not the bestow curse.
If there's a distinction in the rules between "outside" and "inside", I can't find it. Could you point to where in the rules you're deriving your interpretation from?
Honestly, they way I understand it to keep it simple (although technically you are supposed to roll SR checks per creature with SR) is that the caster always rolls a SR check when they cast a spell that cares about SR and that roll is stored until it needs to be checked against a creatures SR. Any creature that has SR higher than the roll is just not affected while their SR is active, which for most creatures is always, but in the case of reducing SR or the SR spell, as soon as a creature gains an SR higher than a spell that is active, they can no longer gain any new application of that spell's effects (i.e. damage/healing, new debuffs, etc.).
I don't think I agree with this shortcut - though I suppose if you've got to make a big bundle of spell resistance checks it makes some sense.
If there's a distinction in the rules between "outside" and "inside", I can't find it. Could you point to where in the rules you're deriving your interpretation from?That the Spell Resistance entry has separate sections for targeted, area, and effect spells.
For a Bestow curse, that curse is there and applying spell resistance later is just adding a layer over the curse.
To me, SR is like a bubble. If you're wet and put inside a bubble, you're still wet. If you're not wet and get put in the bubble, someone trying to make you wet has to get around the bubble. If they get around the bubble, it has popped and you get wet.
If you pass through the stream of a hose, you get wet. If you pass through the stream of a hose, then get a bubble, the hose might or might not be able to penetrate the bubble, but it doesn't mean you become unwet or that the hose suddenly gained magical bubble penetrating powers.
I find that it intuits itself out well enough for my purposes, but I no longer have any conviction that this how the rules work.
I've read those sections, but nothing in them seems to support the "inside" vs "outside" interpretation.
Your "bubble" interpretation seems reasonable and internally consistent, but, yeah, I don't think it's quite rules-supported for some edge cases.
|
While I like Kasoh's "bubble" interpretation, I think the rules on spell durations hold the actual answer.
Durations: A spell’s duration entry tells you how long the magical energy of the spell lasts.
Timed Durations: Many durations are measured in rounds, minutes, hours, or other increments. When the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends. . .
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
Permanent: The energy remains as long as the effect does. This means the spell is vulnerable to dispel magic.
Even permanent spells could (possibly) be removed by gaining spell resistance later since the magic energy is still there keeping the effect in place. Instantaneous, however, could not.
Bestow curse yes.
Feeblemind no.
I don't see any reason or rules supporting a spell resistance check against someone with no spell resistance. That situation seems more similar to the rule allowing a creature who has lowered his spell resistance getting a check when his resistance is back up.So, to clarify, in the example in the OP you'd support the caster of Bestow Curse having to make a spell resistance check when the victim casts the spell Spell Resistance, and, in the example in my post above yours, you'd support creature 2 taking damage from the Wall of Fire on creature 1's turn on round 2?
Honestly, I don't think it's particularly clear. It's my impression that you check spell resistance when a creature is affected by the spell, and that gaining spell resistance after being affected by the spell does nothing, but gaining spell resistance and coming back into contact with a spell would cause you to check against spell resistance at that time.
There is a specific rule preventing you from removing an ongoing effect by acquiring spell resistance, and a specific rule allowing you to check against spell resistance if you were affected while you'd deliberately lowered your spell resistance.
So no check for bestow curse, unless the target deliberately lowered their spell resistance; and yes you'd need to make a spell resistance check against someone who came in contact with your wall of fire, gained spell resistance, and came into contact with it again.
|
|
There is a specific rule preventing you from removing an ongoing effect by acquiring spell resistance, and a specific rule allowing you to check against spell resistance if you were affected while you'd deliberately lowered your spell resistance.
I must be dense, what/where is the specific rule preventing you from removing ongoing effects by acquiring spell resistance? Because that would answer the OP's question definitively.
Spell Resistance
Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check.
The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.
The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.
The rules for spell resistance are not that complicated. The above section is about all there is in the core rule book. The rules are clear that spell resistance is rolled when a creature with spell resistance is resisting a spell. So if the creature does not have spell resistance they cannot resist the spell. If they latter gain it they can and should get a roll. The rules also state that spell resistance normally applies when a creature is targeted with a spell. To me that means it will not remove an existing spell. The wording of in many cases implies there are times when this is not true. So if the description of a spell states otherwise then the general rule does not apply.
If you have SR 13, and then get hit with a Wall of Fire and an SR check succeeds against you, and then you move out of the WoF, and then you gain SR 20, and then you move back into the WoF, do you get a new SR check vs SR 20 when you walk back into the WoF?
If you answer No, then why are you saying the same for SR 0 ---> SR 20
If you get hit by a sword and then get an AC buff, do you still get hit by swords at your previous AC?
That's not a fair example. AC is checked with every single attack, not with the first attack only. Although SR is kinda like AC for spells, these are two very different mechanics.
More seriously, I'd probably ask if it is a new instance of SR. A drow has natural SR, but if they get Spell Resistance cast on them, you'd use the higher one and if the new one was higher, I'd give it a new chance to resist the spell, because that instance of spell resistance has never attempted to resist any spells yet. The caster beat one spell resistance, not all spell resistance.
If we were meant to check SR for ongoing spells each time the target gains a higher SR, it would say so in the rules. That's a pretty significant mechanic that would need to be explicitly enumerated if that's the way we're supposed to do it.
As a hypothetical example, let's say you're a level 5 Drow with 11 SR from race. You're wearing Leather Armor enchanted with SR 13 and a Shield enchanted with SR 15, and there is a level 11 DMNPC Wizard who has the Spell Resistance spell prepared and is temporarily in your party for this particular mission.
In Round 1, an enemy casts Dispel on your shield and suppresses the magical effects for 1d4 rounds, and he rolls a 4.
In Round 2, the enemy casts Dispel again, except this time he targets your Leather Armor for 1d4 rounds and rolls a 2. (At this time, your shield has 3 rounds remaining on it's suppression)
In Round 3, the enemy casts Wall of Fire, and makes an SR check against your racial SR of 11 and succeeds. (At this time, your shield has 2 rounds remaining, and your armor has 1 round remaining)
In Round 4, your armor suppression is over, and your SR increases to 13. Do you make a second SR check?
In Round 5, your shield suppression is over, and your SR increases to 15. Do you make a third SR check?
In Round 6, your DMNPC Wizard casts the spell Spell Resistance and your SR becomes 12+CL, so it's now 23 SR. Do you make a fourth SR check?
I would argue no to any of this. You check SR once, and if it succeeds, it affects you for the duration, regardless of if you gain more SR later.
There is a specific rule preventing you from removing an ongoing effect by acquiring spell resistance, and a specific rule allowing you to check against spell resistance if you were affected while you'd deliberately lowered your spell resistance.I must be dense, what/where is the specific rule preventing you from removing ongoing effects by acquiring spell resistance? Because that would answer the OP's question definitively.
I'll echo Belafon's question.
The rules for spell resistance are not that complicated. The above section is about all there is in the core rule book. The rules are clear that spell resistance is rolled when a creature with spell resistance is resisting a spell. So if the creature does not have spell resistance they cannot resist the spell. If they latter gain it they can and should get a roll. The rules also state that spell resistance normally applies when a creature is targeted with a spell. To me that means it will not remove an existing spell. The wording of in many cases implies there are times when this is not true. So if the description of a spell states otherwise then the general rule does not apply.
I'll admit I missed the section on page 217, and the mention on page 11 - I was focused on pages 565-567. Thanks for pointing out that section.
"If they gain it later they can and should get a roll" and "To me that means it will not remove an existing spell" seem somewhat contradictory. To clarify, do you mean they can and should get a roll when exposed to subsequent effects, but not the effect they previously failed to resist when they didn't have spell resistance?
If you have SR 13, and then get hit with a Wall of Fire and an SR check succeeds against you, and then you move out of the WoF, and then you gain SR 20, and then you move back into the WoF, do you get a new SR check vs SR 20 when you walk back into the WoF?
If you answer No, then why are you saying the same for SR 0 ---> SR 20
At the core of this debate is whether or not having no spell resistance at all is actually equivalent to SR 0. If it is, then the spell resistance rules apply to everyone - there's always a spell resistance check to see if a spell is resisted, even if that check is trivially passed. The rules are pretty clear in this case, but there're some odd, probably unintended, consequences. If it isn't, it's ambiguous what happens if you gain or lose spell resistance while affected by an ongoing effect.
There's even an (admittedly unlikely) edge case where that distinction directly matters:
A CL 1 caster is under the effects of Mad Hallucination, and casts a "Spell Resistance yes" spell that would affect a creature without spell resistance. If the rules for checking spell resistance only apply to creatures with spell resistance, then the affected creature is affected as normal with no chance to resist. If "no spell resistance == SR 0", then there's actually a chance for the caster to fail that check.
Since the thread is drifting a bit - and I don't mind that, I'm just clarifying my position - I don't think that changing the value of your spell resistance would provoke a new spell resistance check. I can't find anything in the rules that would support that position. My dilemmas entirely revolve around going from no spell resistance to having spell resistance, or vice versa.
I'll echo Belafon's question.There is a specific rule preventing you from removing an ongoing effect by acquiring spell resistance, and a specific rule allowing you to check against spell resistance if you were affected while you'd deliberately lowered your spell resistance.I must be dense, what/where is the specific rule preventing you from removing ongoing effects by acquiring spell resistance? Because that would answer the OP's question definitively.
My mistake. I misread the line about disrupting spell effects. Since there is no specific rule saying that spell resistance can't disrupt ongoing effects, acquiring spell resistance during an ongoing effect does allow the spell resistance a chance to disrupt it. That makes the spell immunity spell a very potent remove type spell as long as the spell isn't instant.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.
Here's the relevant rule for checking SR. You can read this as "If SR=0, then SR check automatically passes, and therefore the spell affects them for its duration" --or-- "If SR=0, no SR check has been made yet, and therefore can be made later once/if SR is gained".
|
|
I think we're all in agreement that the source of the argument is just this one part:
If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.
Why does the magic differentiate between a creature that normally has spell resistance but didn't when it was hit by a spell and one that doesn't normally have spell resistance but gets it later? What's the difference in those two cases? Or is there no functional difference?
|
|
Since there is no specific rule saying that spell resistance can't disrupt ongoing effects, acquiring spell resistance during an ongoing effect does allow the spell resistance a chance to disrupt it. That makes the spell immunity spell a very potent remove type spell as long as the spell isn't instant.
This was my thought as well, and the one reason I'm not entirely sure that gaining spell resistance after the fact is intended to give you a chance to shrug off the spell. I think the reading of spell durations and the clause about creatures that have lowered their spell resistance supports a post-facto SR check, but I'm not sure if it's the intention.
Suppose you get hit with a bestow curse. The normal ways of getting rid of it are remove curse or break enchantment - both of which require a caster level check - or limited wish, miracle, or wish - all of which have expensive material components. Or you could just cast spell immunity (choosing bestow curse) since
The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells.
Similar for a high caster level gaes and some other spells.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.Here's the relevant rule for checking SR. You can read this as "If SR=0, then SR check automatically passes, and therefore the spell affects them for its duration" --or-- "If SR=0, no SR check has been made yet, and therefore can be made later once/if SR is gained".
I'm aware of that rule - I quoted it in the OP - but it's not clear that rule applies to creatures without spell resistance. In context, "check spell resistance" seems to mean "make a caster level check to see if a creature with spell resistance resists the spell" and not "check to see if the creature has spell resistance".
Further, in pathfinder, we don't generally assume that something without an ability actually has that ability, just with a negligible check or DC. An Incorporeal creature has no strength score, not a 0 strength score; casting Bear's Strength on an incorporeal creature doesn't raise it's strength to 4. An Ooze has no Intelligence Score; casting Fox's Cunning won't increase it to 4 either. If get bitten by a creature without a poison ability you don't make a Fort save vs DC 0 for the nonexistent poison.
So why would you make a SR check against, or apply the SR rules to, a creature without SR? It's not got SR 0, it's simply got no SR at all. Checking spell resistance would seem to be an action that only applies to things that actually have spell resistance.
Spell resistance applies at the moment a spell effect would affect the creature. Normally this can only occurs one time. However, various environmental spell effects can offer multiple opportunities to apply spell resistance, but only the first opportunity with spell resistance up is taken. Similarly, spells that must reapply their effects each round offer the same opportunities.
For example:
Player A walks into a wall of fire and has no spell resistance or voluntarily lowered any that they had. They suffer the full effects of the wall with no spell resistance applied.
The following round, player A walks back through the wall of fire but this time they have spell resistance up, spell resistance is now applied to the wall of fire. If the check fails, player A resists the wall entirely and may pass freely through it, so long as they have spell resistance up and the wall is not recast.
The reason that spell resistance does not remove an ongoing effect is that spell resistance is checked when the subject is target by the spell. spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell/b]
The rules also state[b] If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance,. That makes it clear that makes it clear that there are creatures without spell resistance. So a creature without spell resistance does not have spell resistance 0, they have no spell resistance. In programing this would be a spell resistance of null. It is also possible to have multiple instances of spell resistance in which case they do not stack only the highest is used. If a creature gains a higher spell resistance and is targeted by the same source that spell resistance has not been overcome so would get a check.
I don’t see where anyone is getting that you ever roll a second time without a specific effect that says you do. The rules clearly state that if you successfully resist a spell you ALWAYS succeed against that same casting, and the same if you fail to resist. Nowhere does it say you ever get to check again... it does however say that you do get to roll later if you encounter the effect once without spell resistance up and then reencounter the same casting of the effect with spell resistance, you would roll against SR on the second encounter but not the first in that instance. That late roll ruling doesn’t however allow for spell resistance to apply to an active ongoing effect, just effects that can he encountered multiple times (primarily environmental spell effects like walls and illusions)
I don’t see where anyone is getting that you ever roll a second time without a specific effect that says you do. The rules clearly state that if you successfully resist a spell you ALWAYS succeed against that same casting, and the same if you fail to resist. Nowhere does it say you ever get to check again... it does however say that you do get to roll later if you encounter the effect once without spell resistance up and then reencounter the same casting of the effect with spell resistance, you would roll against SR on the second encounter but not the first in that instance. That late roll ruling doesn’t however allow for spell resistance to apply to an active ongoing effect, just effects that can he encountered multiple times (primarily environmental spell effects like walls and illusions)
^---- Yep.
That late roll ruling doesn’t however allow for spell resistance to apply to an active ongoing effect, just effects that can he encountered multiple times (primarily environmental spell effects like walls and illusions)
Are you reading everything below the "Effects Spells" header as applying exclusively to spells with an effects line?
I can see that as possibly correct, but it does have some problems - for example, while the Effects Spells section tells you when spell resistance applies, "check when the creature is first affected by the spell", neither the Area Spells or Targeted Spells sections have any such language. They simply say that "spell resistance applies". So, if a Bestow Curse target gains spell resistance while affected by that spell, without that timing language it seems less defensible that a spell resistance check can exclusively happen when the target first encounters that effect.
I'm still not convinced any of those rules actually apply to creatures without spell resistance either - why would we apply spell resistance or check spell resistance if the creature in question doesn't have that ability?
That late roll ruling doesn’t however allow for spell resistance to apply to an active ongoing effect, just effects that can he encountered multiple times (primarily environmental spell effects like walls and illusions)Are you reading everything below the "Effects Spells" header as applying exclusively to spells with an effects line?
Not even remotely. I am reading the rules for spell resistance as applying how the rules directly state. Spell resistance applies when the target is first affected by the spell if present, if not it may or may not apply later depending on how the spell functions. If the spell can stop affecting the target and then start up again later in the same casting, then spell resistance can come into effect later otherwise it only matters at the initial onset of the spell.
I can see that as possibly correct, but it does have some problems - for example, while the Effects Spells section tells you when spell resistance applies, "check when the creature is first affected by the spell", neither the Area Spells or Targeted Spells sections have any such language. They simply say that "spell resistance applies". So, if a Bestow Curse target gains spell resistance while affected by that spell, without that timing language it seems less defensible that a spell resistance check can exclusively happen when the target first encounters that effect.
I'm still not convinced any of those rules actually apply to creatures without spell resistance either - why would we apply spell resistance or check spell resistance if the creature in question doesn't have that ability?
If you are under the effects of bestow curse and later gain spell resistance, your spell resistance doesn’t impact the bestow curse effect. The reason for this is because bestow curse is a continuous effect that doesn’t simply stop and start up again. You make multiple saves sure, but the curse doesn’t end and come back between saves. I called out environmental spell effects specifically because they are the most common types of spells that can both stop and reapply their effects to a target in the same casting.
Furthermore the rules for how and when you apply spell resistance do not care how much spell resistance you have or if that value changes they only care about if you have spell resistance at all. When a spell is cast you check if a target has spell resistance at all, if they do you roll to overcome if not you continue with the spell effect as normal. The result of your roll against the targets spell resistance applies every time they encounter that spell effect from that casting, regardless of if their spell resistance value changes. However if their spell resistance is dropped they are treated as having no spell resistance and the spell effect can affect them as normal if they encounter it again. Most spells don’t allow for late SR since they either last no more than a round or have continuous effects on the target that do not stop. You can’t apply late spell resistance to an active effect on you, you can only apply it to an effect you may encounter later (be it a new spell cast or an old effect that has stopped affecting you)
Furthermore the rules for how and when you apply spell resistance do not care how much spell resistance you have or if that value changes they only care about if you have spell resistance at all. When a spell is cast you check if a target has spell resistance at all, if they do you roll to overcome if not you continue with the spell effect as normal. The result of your roll against the targets spell resistance applies every time they encounter that spell effect from that casting, regardless of if their spell resistance value changes. However if their spell resistance is dropped they are treated as having no spell resistance and the spell effect can affect them as normal if they encounter it again. Most spells don’t allow for late SR since they either last no more than a round or have continuous effects on the target that do not stop. You can’t apply late spell resistance to an active effect on you, you can only apply it to an effect you may encounter later (be it a new spell cast or an old effect that has stopped affecting you)
I would argue that this step is also only a time saving measure because back in ye old time before online/good computerbased game trackers, it was overall faster to see if something had SR and skip when possible than to always roll SR then check who has SR. Realistically, you would still make the SR check all the time but simply not care about the result, and you also don't roll per creature.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if a target has no SR. The SR roll may be retroactive, but each individual casting gets a SR threshold that determines if any new application of spell effects get through.
Not even remotely. I am reading the rules for spell resistance as applying how the rules directly state. Spell resistance applies when the target is first affected by the spell if present, if not it may or may not apply later depending on how the spell functions. If the spell can stop affecting the target and then start up again later in the same casting, then spell resistance can come into effect later otherwise it only matters at the initial onset of the spell.If you are under the effects of bestow curse and later gain spell resistance, your spell resistance doesn’t impact the bestow curse effect. The reason for this is because bestow curse is a continuous effect that doesn’t simply stop and start up again. You make multiple saves sure, but the curse doesn’t end and come back between saves. I called out environmental spell effects specifically because they are the most common types of spells that can both stop and reapply their effects to a target in the same casting.
My apologies then, I was trying to figure out how you arrived at the interpretation you did. Problem is, the only justification I can find for treating a continuous effect like Bestow Curse differently from a (potentially) discontinuous one like Wall of Fire is that kind of reading. If we agree that the passage below the Effects Spells header (quoted below for clarity) applies equally to both spells, then I don't see why gaining spell resistance after having been affected by Bestow Curse has a different outcome than gaining spell resistance after having been affected by Wall of Fire. If you read that "checking spell resistance" means "make a spell resistance check" and is a thing that can only happen to creatures with spell resistance, then in both cases you make the spell resistance check the moment the affected creature is exposed to the spell after gaining spell resistance. If "checking spell resistance" is a thing that can happen to creatures without spell resistance, then in neither case will there be a spell resistance check after gaining spell resistance because that's already happened, happens only once, and the first result sticks. The fact that you can step away from one spell and not the other is a non-factor to those rules.
Spell resistance can protect a creature from a spell that’s already been cast. Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell.
Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds.
Furthermore the rules for how and when you apply spell resistance do not care how much spell resistance you have or if that value changes they only care about if you have spell resistance at all. When a spell is cast you check if a target has spell resistance at all, if they do you roll to overcome if not you continue with the spell effect as normal. The result of your roll against the targets spell resistance applies every time they encounter that spell effect from that casting, regardless of if their spell resistance value changes.
On this we agree. I haven't argued that changing the value of your spell resistance nets you a re-roll.
However if their spell resistance is dropped they are treated as having no spell resistance and the spell effect can affect them as normal if they encounter it again. Most spells don’t allow for late SR since they either last no more than a round or have continuous effects on the target that do not stop. You can’t apply late spell resistance to an active effect on you, you can only apply it to an effect you may encounter later (be it a new spell cast or an old effect that has stopped affecting you)
If by "spell resistance is dropped" you mean "voluntarily lowered", then they should get a reroll either way - the rules seem fairly explicit about that:
If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is back up.
And, again, I don't see why that wouldn't apply equally to both continuous effects and discontinuous effects.
If by "spell resistance is dropped" you mean "voluntarily lowered", then they should get a reroll either way - the rules seem fairly explicit about that
Quick clarification, reroll was the wrong word to use there and doesn't convey what I intended - I should instead have said something like "roll when they bring their spell resistance back up".
If you have SR and voluntarily lower it and get affected with a spell, then you get an SR check when your SR comes back up the following round. Edit: And this is the SR mechanic's own specific rule for Voluntarily Lowering SR, and this rule shouldn't be considered in the event that a character simply has 0 SR at all.
But if you have SR 0, you're essentially treated as Helpless to Resist it in the same way of making a Coup De Grace vs. a Helpless target (you automatically hit without having to roll d20), and therefore must make a Save. There are some spells that you can ignore all the effects if you Save, but there are plenty of spells that still affect you on a Successful Save.
I think the most clear rule that governs this is "Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability." <---- if you have SR0 when this event occurs, then you're simply Helpless to resist it, and this event should satisfy this condition of "check SR only once".
And if you disagree with this, I don't blame you, because frankly this is yet another example of sha-poopy writing. Make your own House Rule and press on.
If you have SR and voluntarily lower it and get affected with a spell, then you get an SR check when your SR comes back up the following round.
But if you have SR 0, you're essentially treated as Helpless to Resist it in the same way of making a Coup De Grace vs. a Helpless target (you automatically hit without having to roll d20), and therefore must make a Save. There are some spells that you can ignore all the effects if you Save, but there are plenty of spells that still affect you on a Successful Save.
I think the most clear rule that governs this is "Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability." <---- if you have SR0 when this event occurs, then you're simply Helpless to resist it, and this event should satisfy this condition of "check SR only once".
And if you disagree with this, I don't blame you, because frankly this is yet another example of sha-poopy writing. Make your own House Rule and press on.
Honestly, I'm on the fence. I'm not convinced there's much RAW justification for SR0 == No SR, but, since the flip side seems to be that spells like Spell Immunity become much, much more powerful, I'm not sure what I actually prefer.
Honestly, I'm on the fence. I'm not convinced there's much RAW justification for SR0 == No SR, but, since the flip side seems to be that spells like Spell Immunity become much, much more powerful, I'm not sure what I actually prefer.If you have SR and voluntarily lower it and get affected with a spell, then you get an SR check when your SR comes back up the following round.
But if you have SR 0, you're essentially treated as Helpless to Resist it in the same way of making a Coup De Grace vs. a Helpless target (you automatically hit without having to roll d20), and therefore must make a Save. There are some spells that you can ignore all the effects if you Save, but there are plenty of spells that still affect you on a Successful Save.
I think the most clear rule that governs this is "Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability." <---- if you have SR0 when this event occurs, then you're simply Helpless to resist it, and this event should satisfy this condition of "check SR only once".
And if you disagree with this, I don't blame you, because frankly this is yet another example of sha-poopy writing. Make your own House Rule and press on.
And I totally get it. It's a poorly written rule, I agree. I think you should House Rule what you feel is appropriate regarding an SR 0 target vs. Ongoing or Permanent effects, such as WoF, Blindness, or Bestow Curse.
Keep in mind that line isn't referring to how you determine if an effect does or does not take effect (damn english), it's saying "don't roll multiple times for multiple effects, enemies, rays, etc. just roll once and that's the roll that everyone checks their own SR against."
Keep in mind that line isn't referring to how you determine if an effect does or does not take effect (damn english), it's saying "don't roll multiple times for multiple effects, enemies, rays, etc. just roll once and that's the roll that everyone checks their own SR against."
I've got to disagree - look at the use of the phrase "the creature" in the surrounding sentences. In context, the sentence applies to the "the creature" in question, telling you to make only check per creature per spell.
A spell that affects multiple creatures which have spell resistance requires multiple spell resistance checks, one for each.
As I said previously though, rolling one caster level check at the start and then applying that same number all around makes some sense as a shortcut. A bit swingier perhaps, but faster if there's many enemies.
My group usually does the one roll apply to all route... if there are more than 3 affected targets... but raw it is roll per creature... and you either pass or fail one time... if you have no SR you have a pass/fail result of null... most spells will effectively apply a result of fail to those null results if they later gain SR... but as pointed out (and admittedly I missed in my readings) if you lower your SR it will always apply retroactively when raised for any active ongoing effects on you, you have null SR for the initial round, but get the full effect for subsequent rounds after you raise it back up... if you had no SR (not lowered existing SR) you only apply late SR to new effects or ongoing effects that have stopped affecting you.